"Crappy Gabor paper": Overly honest citation slips into peer-reviewed journal Ethology.
THE CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO THE FUTURE
11/13/14, 6:38 PM
NOV. 11 2014 7:28 PM
This Is What Happens When No One
Proofreads an Academic Paper
By Will Oremus
By now we all know, or ought to know, that just because something is published in a peer-reviewed academic journal doesn’t mean it’s true. But we can
at least assume it's been proofread, right?
Apparently not. A priceless gaffe, which has been making the rounds of academic Twitter this week, is Exhibit A.
It comes in the main text of a paper titled “Variation in Melanism and Female Preference in Proximate but Ecologically Distinct Environments,” which
was published in a recent issue of the journal Ethology. Here’s the unintentionally candid passage, as highlighted by UC–Davis grad student Dave
Harris:
Dave Harris
@davidjayharris
Follow
Not sure how this made it through proofreading, peer review, and
copyediting. Via onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/et…
#addedvalue
3:54 PM - 10 Nov 2014
3,949 RETWEETS 2,283 FAVORITES
The blooper was picked up by Retraction Watch, which contacted both the authors and the publisher for comment. The corresponding author told
Retraction Watch the Gabor line “was added into the paper by a co-author during revision (after peer review),” and no one spotted it in the course of the
final proofreading process. He apologized for the put-down, adding, “I would never condone this sentiment towards another person or their work.”
Wiley, the publisher, responded by removing the paper and says it will republish it with the line removed and the change noted. “We are in the process
of investigating how this line made it to publication,” the Wiley spokesperson said.
That’s a good question. Typos and editing mistakes are common on blogs and even in print newspapers, where reporters and editors are working on
tight deadlines. But academics typically have weeks or even months to edit a paper before the journal goes to press, and the peer review process means
that it has to go through close reads by multiple experts in the relevant field.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/11/11/_crappy_gabor_paper_overly_honest_citation_slips_into_peer_reviewed_journal.html
Page 1 of 7
"Crappy Gabor paper": Overly honest citation slips into peer-reviewed journal Ethology.
11/13/14, 6:38 PM
For that reason, errors this glaring in the main text of an article are relatively rare, says Meredith Carpenter, a postdoctoral researcher at Stanford and
co-author of the science humor blog Seriously, Science? As Carpenter and co-author Lillian Fritz-Laylin explained in a Slate post last year, overly honest
asides are more commonly found in the acknowledgements section, which tends not to be peer-reviewed.
Still, slip-ups do happen, and Carpenter pointed me to another example that might be even more mortifying than the “crappy Gabor paper” mishap.
This one is in the abstract of a paper published in 2011 in the peer-reviewed open-access journal BMC Systems Biology (emphasis mine):
RESULTS: In this study, we have used (insert statistical method here) to compile unique DNA methylation signatures from normal human heart, lung,
and kidney using the Illumina Infinium 27 K methylation arrays and compared those to gene expression by RNA sequencing.
The journal later apologized and corrected the mistake, noting that the statistical methods were adequately explained later in the article.
Carpenter says the most prominent academic journals usually copy edit papers prior to publication. But smaller journals don’t always look as closely at
the final version of a paper once it has been peer-reviewed and revised. In that case, it’s at least partly the responsibility of the paper’s authors to make
sure they haven’t introduced any mistakes in the editing process. This one looks like what we might call a track-changes fail.
The paper’s authors aren’t the only ones taking flak for it. Commenters and Twitter wags were quick to hunt down the “crappy paper” in question, since
after all a paper with a major typo is still better than one that’s crappy all around. But at least one considerate observer warned against a rush to
judgment:
Joshua Drew
Follow
@Drew_Lab
We've all seen the "crappy" #addedvalue paper. Let's not
substitute their assessment of the research for our own
link.springer.com/article/10.100…
9:29 AM - 11 Nov 2014
Association patterns of sailfin mollies (Poecilia
latipinna): alternat
Individuals may associate with each other due to a variety of
selective forces, such as intra- and intersexual selection, and
conspecific recognition. Previous studies have concluded that
mate choice
Springer SBM @SpringerSBM
22 RETWEETS 20 FAVORITES
It’s tempting to view this real-life corollary to #overlyhonestmethods as an indictment of the academic publication process. But Carpenter suggested a
more optimistic take: “Instead of a failure of the system, you could also consider this a success of post-publication peer review.”
In that spirit, I’d like to reiterate Slate’s standing call for our readers to alert us to our own mistakes both new and old. (Should I cite the crappy Oremus
Encyclopaedia Britannica error here?)
Previously in Slate:
Top Comment
At least they didn't call Gabor a
SHPOS. More...
-davem_or
245 Comments
The Snarky, Clever Comments Hidden in the “Acknowledgements” of Academic Papers
College Students’ Thesis Topics Are Hilarious, Depressing
Join In
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/11/11/_crappy_gabor_paper_overly_honest_citation_slips_into_peer_reviewed_journal.html
Page 2 of 7